I LIKE YOUR LOGO
It didn't seem to garner much media attention, but last week, 6 of the 8 Democratic Presidential hopefuls went on LOGO (the gay and lesbian cable channel) to discussed issues important to the GLBT community. Since I enthusiastically watched the entire program, I thought I would give a quick assessment of how I thought the candidates performed ...
JOE BIDEN - Absent. What statement does that make? Anyone know why he declined?
CHRIS DODD - See Joe Biden.
DENNIS KUCINICH- Kucinich was on fire in this one. Except for Gravel, he is the only candidate to fully support gay marriage, and the crowd loved him. And he loved them ... literally mentioning the word "love" several times. At one point, he was even asked if there was anything about him the gay and lesbian community wouldn't like. His answer was obvious.
MIKE GRAVEL - I tend to like most of Gravel's positions, but he has been pretty bad in the debates thus far. He has a tendency to babble and can't seem to articulate his thoughts very well. But I have to say that he was excellent in this more intimate forum. He was genuinely happy to be there and wasn't as over-the-top angry as he usually is. It's cool to see an old school politician support gay marriage with no hems and haws.
BARACK OBAMA - Obama reminded everyone several times that he was the first candidate to accept the invitation from Logo, but that aside, he was no competition for Kucinich. That being said, he did fine. His position is basically to support full civil unions for gay couples and that marriage should be left to the church.
JOHN EDWARDS - I think Edwards did the best amongst those who do not support gay marriage. He does, however, emphatically supports civil unions and full equality under the law. Even though he doesn't support gay marriage, he's the only candidate who's completely open and honest about it. And he makes a point to say that his religious beliefs shouldn't be forced on others.
HILARY CLINTON - I have some problems with Clinton, but I continue to be impressed with her skills as a politician. She pretty much has the same views as Edwards, but it took some prodding for her to quietly admit that she's "not there yet" in terms of gay marriage. But I don't think she hurt her cause at all with her performance here.
BILL RICHARDSON - I saved Bill for last, because he was truly horrendous. My opinion is that he's generally been pretty bad in the previous debates, but he really tanked this one. When questioned about his stance on gay marriage, I've never seen someone dance so much in my life. And this wasn't some polished political dance. No, this was a nervous, deer-caught-in-the-headlights kind of dance. If you don't believe me, I challenge you to go to YouTube and see for yourself. It's rather uncomfortable to watch. Also, at one point in the discussion, the questioner actually got him to admit he thinks being gay is a choice. My god, man, did you prepare at all for this thing?
So, here's my conclusion on the whole event ... Kucinich and Gravel have the most progressive stance on gay issues (as they do for most issues), so they won't win. The rest of the candidates -- who showed up -- have identical positions: civil unions with full equal rights, but no gay marriage. So, if a Democrat wins in 2008, that will be the best we can hope for. But hey, it's got to be better than a Constitutional ban against gay marriage, right?
By the way, the Republicans were also asked by Logo to participate in a similar forum. Anyone want to take a guess as to how many accepted?
Labels: demacratic debate, gay marriage, logo
posted by Trekking Left @ 2:29 PM
29 comments
29 Comments:
Yeesh. Richardson has become a major disappointment. On paper, such a strong candidate, great experience, etc... but man, he's just blowing it during debates. Dang. Thought we might have something there...
Thanks for this report, A.M.!
I'll guess that the number of Republicans to accept the invite to LOGO was the same as the number of Democrats who are afraid to be moderated by Brit Hume.
Am I right? Or am I right.
Afraid? Hardly.
Just smart, for once.
Here's a funny...
So you're saying the Republican candidates are smart for not bowing to the Homo lobby?
If the Un-Fairness Doctrine was in place they probably still wouldn't have the sack to go on there. I know it's an overused term, but "pantywaist" comes to mind.
I don't think the Democrats are afraid at all on this one. In fact, I think it shows "sack" to refuse, knowing they're going to get attacked for it.
They know they're going to get attacked by Faux News anyways, so might as well not give Faux the satisfaction of thinking it's a legitimate news channel. Cuz it isn't.
I might agree that the Repugnicans are "smart" for using homophobia to appeal to rednecks and jerks, since it seems to work at getting them elected. It's also cruel, unAmerican, and probably very shortsighted.
uggghhhh!
on your first point, i'm not sure i can disagree with you. it's a worthy viewpoint to think they have balls for refusing to go on Fox.
I see where youre coming from on point two. I disagree with your opinion that it's not a news channel, but thats ok.
as for your third point, it frustrates me to think that you believe republicans are only out there to appeal to rednecks and jerks. you forgot about the bible thumpers, the military, and the hawks like myself. although you might think i fall into the jerk category, im certainly no redneck. im a yankee for chrissakes! besides, i dont believe they push homophobia any more than the pantsuit, who stopped short of saying she was dead against gay marriage. but riddle me this batman: whats more cruel, marginalizing the gay people, or ramming a small mayonnaise jar up your sexual partners arse? i would vote for the latter.
"...you forgot about the bible thumpers, the military, and the hawks"
Ha! you can be funny. :)
I think Ms. Clinton (and Edwards and Obama) is probably where a lot of people in this country are at -- let each church,or state, or community decide what the word "marriage" means to them, but give everybody equal rights under the law.
That might be marginalizing gays a bit, but these kinds of things (just like the idea of interracial marriage 50 years ago) can take a generation to truly shift, and if they follow through with what they say, it's certainly a step in the right direction.
And it's a helluva lot better than kicking gay people around for political gain. Or to cover for a fear of one's own gay thoughts and urges... eh, mr. "mayonnaise jar"?
I only bring up the Miracle Whip because I have a friend who is a doctor in the west village in NY and he treated a guy who died from internal bleeding when the jar broke as they were trying to extract it. That had to be a hard way to go.
So was it a politician who put the jar there? Otherwise the comparison makes no sense.
My point was that the gay guy that died from the mayonnaise jar experienced brutal, painful, anal sex with an object (I know, not an exclusively homosexual act), and that act in and of itself is more cruel than the marginalization of homosexuals. One is visceral, physical cruelty towards ones body, the other intellectual and emotional cruelty towards a group of people.
I'm not aware of what the man's occupation was, but he very well could have been a West Village Alderman for all I know.
What is it you mean by that? Because some gay people do weird, dangerous things and hurt themselves, then as a whole they've got no right to complain about being marginalized (or treated like shit) by politicians? They don't have a right to expect equal treatment by the law until they start acting like "normal" straight people (who do plenty of weird, dangerous things too)? I don't get it.
Biden and Clinton want the war in Iraq to keep going. Edwards doesn't. If Ron Paul doesn't win the rethug nod I will vote dem. I just hope I'm not forced to vote for Billary or Biden.
I definitely have my problems with Clinton, but the way things are going, I don't see how she won't win the nomination.
At this point, all things considered, I'm liking Edwards as well. I think he's probably the best candidate that actually has a shot at winning.
I will say one thing for Biden ... The only solution for Iraq (besides not invading) is and has always been a soft partition of the country. Biden is the first and only one to say that.
I will say one thing for Biden ... The only solution for Iraq (besides not invading) is and has always been a soft partition of the country. Biden is the first and only one to say that.
Yep, and the sooner we get out of the way the quicker they can get to the business at hand. Turkey, Syria, Iran, and the KSA will work it out without us telling them what to do.
Has it ever occurred to you that the sooner we get out of the way the sooner the real un-civil war will begin? Once those factions start vying for power there without the security that our troops bring to the nation all hell will break loose. But I guess that wouldn't matter to the folks calling for an immediate pullout. Funny thing is, when America (God forbid) elects one of the Dems as the new CinC and we do pull out, and the mayhem ensues, they'll be pointing the finger at the right, again, because nothing is ever their fault.
Those entities will work it out, alright. They'll use mass murder, extortion, beheadings, the killing of innocent women and children, rape torture... have I missed anything? Yeah, they'll work it out.
Um, says who, exactly? Besides you?
And if you're quoting Rumsfeld, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Perle, or any of the other guys whose bright idea this war was in the first place, take note of the fact that not a single thing they predicted has turned out correctly.
Average Man, I know you don't really believe that if we pulled out now that everything would be hunky-dory over there. You've got to admit that if the Dems had their way and we tucked tail now that it would be nothing short of chaos over there. What exactly is it about these sickos that you feel they deserve the benefit of the doubt? They are animals, man... below average people with below average intellects and warped moral standards that want you dead on the way to reinstating the Caliphate. In what world do they deserve any credit at all?
"Hunky dory" Hardly. But removing our troops is a first step towards showing them that we're not there to take over their country. And pledging to not leave any permanent military bases (including our $500M "embassy") would be another good move. It IS chaos over there, and our presence is not helping.
"these sickos" WTF are you talking about? Iraq was a SECULAR state before we came in! Saddam was a brutal, dictatorial bastard, but there were universities, technology, women had rights and freedoms -- I'm not saying it was perfect, but it was basically a modern, middle class society. That, given time and the right opportunities, probably would have become democratic on its own terms. Instead, the US bombed it to pieces.
"animals" There's crazy radical violent Americans too. Don't allow your racism and your anger to blind you to the fact that 90% of the people in Iraq, or any country, just want to live their lives, earn a living, and raise their families.
If some military machine came in and invaded the US, you can bet that every one of us would take up arms and fight to get rid of them. And fight amongst ourselves for who would get to control what's left. And that's exactly what's going on there.
Where did you read that we are there to take over Iraq? And what makes you think that the average Iraqi wants the coalition security presence removed? I believe there are differing opinions on this issue over there. Even some Dems are saying the surge is working.
Another thing I notice you like to do is portray the Iraqis as the people we are fighting. DUH! We are fighting INSURGENTS. Check dictionary.com on that one. Whatever Iraq was before 2003 was demolished in three months. The invasion is over and the dictator deposed. WE ARE NOT FIGHTING THE IRAQIS. WE ARE FIGHTING WITH THE IRAQIS TO ELIMINATE THE INSURGENT THREAT.
God I HATE it when folks of your ilk turn it around into the BLAME AMERICA thing ("there's crazy violent Americans too"). No shit Shelock. The difference is the crazy violent jihadists in the Middle East want all of us dead. Jeffrey Dahmer just wants to eat his neighbor's liver and freeze his head. The Islamofascists won't stop until Islam takes over Europe first and then North America. PacMan Jones just wants to make it rain and maybe kick somebody's ass after he's had a few pops at the titty bar. The medievalists WILL NOT STOP until Sharia law covers the planet (not just their corner of the world!). The crazy violent Americans in that home invasion in Connecticut just wanted to steal some jewelry.
It's apples and oranges tAM, and you know it, so stop comparing them to us. You're making the jelly doughnut in my belly repeat on me.
The Project for a New American Century http://www.newamericancentury.org/ laid out the plans for American world domination in 1997, beginning with a permanent military base in Iraq. Signed by Cheney, Wolfowitz, Perle, Rumsfeld and the rest. Clear as day.
Insurgents? Iraqis? Very hard to tell the difference visually, so our soldiers end up killing innocent civilians, resentment grows, and more and more people start siding with the insurgents. Before you know it we're "destroying the village to save it" just like in Vietnam. You'd think we'd have learned a lesson there.
I don't blame "America", I blame the people in charge -- the NeoCons and the corporations who back them so they can profit by taking over natural resources and/or "expanding their markets". It's using our volunteer military as a corporate takeover machine, and it stinks.
No, not Dhamer and deranged football players --Timothy McVeigh (Oklahoma city federal building) and the Unibomber. White guys. Nutjobs. Terrorists, plain and simple.
hmmmm. hadn't heard of that organization. couldn't find the docs you say were signed by the administration leaders either, but at any rate you're pointing to a site that from what i can tell hasn't had an update in over two years.
we have permanent military bases in germany and japan, both successful transitional democracies. so would you want to not have a successful democracy in iraq or would you rather we just close our bases in germany and japan? it's a clear day outside, but your POV isn't quite clear to me.
to visually tell the difference between an innocent iraqi citizen and an insurgent is only tough if the insurgent isn't toting his ak47 at the very moment you look at him. check the numbers. the insurgents have killed more iraqi citizens than american forces have. the campaign to oust saddam hussein was the most successful military endeavor in the last 50 years. it used precise target acquisition systems to minimize civilian casualties and a (too) PC set of ROE to attain that end. Yet, it worked.
your comment on the neocons, the corps. that back them and their use of the military to take over nations is just backwards liberalspeak. if we were taking over the country (presumably in your mind for its oil) then why dont we have gas for a buck a gallon? it's been four years. uh oh, i smell a "bush is putting it in his and cheney's back pockets" blast coming. give me a break.
can't disagree with your opinion on mcveigh and kaczinski as white nutjobs, and i'm not sure anyone could. but what terrorist ORGANIZATIONS bent on destroying democracy and installing a new caliphate to either convert the world to islam or exterminate it did those guys belong to? how many beheadings did tim mcveigh participate in? where was his propaganda machine prior to OK City, spouting his psycho beliefs and airing his attacks on american troops, transparent non-believers, innocent journalists, and diplomats of peace? oh that's right, it didn't happen.
don't compare two nutjob wackos to a worldwide ring of terrorists bent on destroying all of us. it's apples and oranges, or apples and figs/olives/poppy plants. it's the demographics that will eventually take down europe, something that two disconnected loonies could never do.
The PNAC documents are here http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm and here http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf
Our soldiers are shooting countless innocent civilians, due to incredibly stupid cultural miscommunications like an open hand meaning "stop" to us and "come forward" to them. This was was ill-conceived and ineptly executed, and I mean from the top down -- I'm certain our soldiers are doing the best they can under the circumstances.
The US military has been used to further corporate expansion as far back as the Phillippines, over 100 years ago. It's nothing new. Read "A People's History of the United States" if you like your mind blown wide open.
Gas is not a buck a gallon because the small ring of companies that control its distribution are gouging us mercilessly, and Congress refuses to do anything about it.
I don't doubt that there is a ring of terrorists bent on destroying all of us. But our military actions this decade have made them far, far stronger. Imagine if we'd spent 500 billion on humanitarian aid around the world instead? The support and membership that gives the "handful of wackos" any power at all would just evaporate.
So I guess the only point I care to disagree with you on is your last (I'll check out the links you sent when I get a moment, thanks for those).
I don't see how our military action makes the enemy stronger. I'm guessing that you think it's because our actions strengthen their resolve? I don't know, but it would seem to me that every time we take out an insurgent hideout with a daisy cutter and kill 100 bad guys, then they are 100 guys weaker. You might have to clarify that one for me.
And throwing money at the problem is the classic liberal solution. You think that they won't hate our lifestyle if we give them billions of dollars? Aren't we already the biggest contributor of humanitarian aid in the history of mankind? If I give Ahmed a ten dollar bill, he will stop wanting to convert me to Islam? It doesn't compute for me. These are a people who believe that the goal of Muhammed and Allah is to Islamify the entire world, and I'm talking about the wackos AND the moderate muslims. Even the good Muslims subscribe to this ideology! It's why Europe will be Islamified by 2050. Take a closer look at Sharia law and decide for yourself if that's what you want for your kids.
Our military presence is making the enemy stronger right now because a) every civilian we "accidentally" kill (and we've killed a lot of them) turns another family against us, and b) the longer we stay, the more it looks like we're going to permanently occupy.
How is "throwing money at it" the LIBERAL solution?! It's Bush&Co that have spent 500 BILLION on this stupid war! They've run up our trade deficit like CRAZY, destroying the surplus that Clinton/Gore created and then some. The more we owe to the Chinese and the Saudis, the less we're able to act independently of them -- that decreases our safety too.
I'm not talking about handing out money, I'm talking about curing diseases, making sure people have food, clothing and clean drinking water. Improving education, especially for women. You do those things, and the goodwill and loyalty it would bring towards America would be immeasurable.
There's always going to be people who hate and want to destroy us. But jihadists need dollars and volunteers, otherwise it's just a couple of loudmouths. There's a lot we could be doing to take away their capabilities, far better solutions than waging war and killing people.
I'm curious -- if you're so certain this war is the right course of action, why aren't you over there fighting it?
Our military presence is making the enemy stronger right now because a) every civilian we "accidentally" kill (and we've killed a lot of them) turns another family against us, and b) the longer we stay, the more it looks like we're going to permanently occupy.
It's notable that mmc has to "guess" why you said it's making them stronger -- even if he disagrees, you might expect someone who isn't completely ignorant (oh, wait, it's mcc, isn't it?) to at least know what people on the other side (who are in the majority) have said, over and over again. And of course it's not just "liberals" who have said this -- heck, even Dick Cheney said it back in 1994, as we know from the video that circulated recently.
hmmmm. hadn't heard of that organization.
Because Ann Coulter and Fox News don't mention it. But anyone who is well-enough informed to have any credibility knows of it.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6189793.stm :
The ambitions proclaimed when the neo-cons' mission statement "The Project for the New American Century" was declared in 1997 have turned into disappointment and recriminations as the crisis in Iraq has grown.
"The Project for the New American Century" has been reduced to a voice-mail box and a ghostly website. A single employee has been left to wrap things up....
Funny thing is, when America (God forbid) elects one of the Dems as the new CinC and we do pull out, and the mayhem ensues, they'll be pointing the finger at the right, again, because nothing is ever their fault.
Typical hypocrisy of scruple-free righties. Of course the mayhem isn't the right's fault, despite the mayhem being a direct consequence of the right's actions. And what's this about "ensuing"? Of course, McConfrontation, who knows absolutely nothing but believes everything wrong that he's been spoon fed by rightwing propagandists, no doubt believes Bush's nonsense about pulling out of VietNam producing a bloodbath and the Khmer Rouge genocide, despite the much greater bloodbath preceding the pullout from VietNam, and that the rise of the Khmer Rouge was a direct consequence of our actions, we allied with them, and it was the communist VietNamese who marched into Cambodia and put an end to the killing fields.
check the numbers. the insurgents have killed more iraqi citizens than american forces have
Of course McLiar doesn't provide any reference for that absurd claim.
I notice you like to do is portray the Iraqis as the people we are fighting. DUH! We are fighting INSURGENTS. Check dictionary.com on that one.
Ok:
"a person who rises in forcible opposition to lawful authority, esp. a person who engages in armed resistance to a government or to the execution of its laws; rebel."
How did the U.S. military come to be "lawful authority" and "government" in Iraq? It was an invasion that was illegal under the very laws that were crafted in response to Hitler's invasion of Poland and other European nations. Could it be that "insurgent" is just a word that media organizations came up with to label the people fighting back against the U.S. invasion of Iraq? What did Hitler call the Poles and others who fought back?
McKnowNothing's posts offer a case study of how people of his sort "think" about these issues.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Post a Comment
<< Home